Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 12/31/2013 1:10:56 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Guys,

Could you post your ctgw logs and save games here please, this will be of great help finding the bug:

Maybe easier at Slitherine as they allow attachments:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=214


How to get the ctgw.log file:

If you ever get an error or crash, please attach the ctgw.log file to your report, this will help us identify the problem. The logs are in your Documents, so the default is "My Documents\My Games\Commander The Great War"

IMPORTANT: This log is overwritten every time you start the game. Please make a copy of the log after any crash/bug you want to report before reloading the game.


NOTE: Please put your attachments in a .zip or .rar format, before you upload it on the Slitherine forum, if not, it will not upload at all.


2 separate CP vs AI both CTD June 1915, don't know how to zip or look up files- sorry.

(in reply to Lord Zimoa)
Post #: 31
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 12/31/2013 1:16:26 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I played as the Entente today, single player "balanced" AI. A whole number of things to consider . . .

i) managed to get game to go in to 1916 so the "1915 crash" may only affect the Central Powers side.

ii) I was able to take artillery unit through the Pripet Marshes and up the Alps in the winter! This seems ridiculous. These terrain features should be completely impassable to vehicles and artillery in both summer and winter.

iii) in 1915 the map stayed all snowy even after winter had ended

iv) thinking about the "small garrison" unit - might it not be better to have them as a unit you have to build and thereby start to develop a "home front" aspect to the game?

v) I didn't realise until today that you actually re-name each unit. It opens up the possibility of dividing battleships into dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts in SP games if you want to. It needs some thought but maybe pre-dreadnoughts cannot benefit from research advances (a voluntary house rule).

vi) considering naval combat between battleships, might it be better to have more 2-2, 3-3, 3-2 results rather than 0-0 or 1-0? Naval encounters were short and brutal, not attritional. In my game I boxed in a German battleship and it took about 6 weeks to destroy it! This is just daft really. Also, with higher losses from combat there will be more opportunity for cruisers to join in to try to finish off battleships.

vii) Should ships be able to move into a port and be repaired on the same turn?

viii) Should ships be able to move into an allied port and be repaired (or be repaired as quickly)?

ix) Naval bombardment seems to be far more effective than artillery bombardment. Should it be?

x) there are a number of invisible Italian units when Italy joins the war - garrison at Naples; garrison at Messina; submarine at Palermo; and cruiser at Cagliari.

xi) an AI unit cut off in one of my cities then committed suicide by moving out of that city (got the dreaded pink dot next turn).

xii) Serbia contained Austria very comfortably in the game; manpower quality on 8 but over 70PP's in the bank. It seemed a bit too strong to me.

xiii) I lost Warsaw and the Special Event came up saying Russia had lost morale - but I recaptured the city two turns later. No Special Event, of course, but what is the overall effect of losing a key city temporarily?

xiv) By mid-1915 the Entente was in a winning position in my game. I had massive surpluses of PP's for France and Britain (I was just building more labs and munitions factories). Looking at the mini-map it was a sea of yellow units with just a few bands of red on the Western, Eastern, Palestine, Caucasus and Serbian fronts. The game does seem very unbalanced at the moment.


I have finished off my game now. just a few more points . . .

xv) game played through OK to 1918 and no further crashes, so this may only happen to the Central Powers side earlier in the game.

xvi) invisible Romanian garrison unit at Arad when they join the war.

xvii) Selling off research labs and immediately re-couping a large amount of PP seems wrong. Why should you get PP back at all?

xviii) When Belgium returned to the war their garrison units still had blue uniforms

xix) There is a spelling mistake in the "Tip" at the very start of the game about cavalry units - successfully.

xx) Both Berlin and Vienna had fallen but Germans and Austro-Hungarians carried on fighting. They would have surrendered much earlier than this in reality.

xxi) I think there should be a maximum number of certain types of unit for each power otherwise things can get a bit absurd towards the end of a game e.g. aircraft, tanks, balloons etc.

xxii) When a country surrenders the map needs to update the borders of the country surrendering. In my game Germany did not exist any more and Austro-Hungary was in Czech Republic! Losing powers should lose territory but should still be based on their core historical areas with some cities and a few units for internal policing. It would make the game much tidier.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 32
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/1/2014 9:48:56 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
If you look at this short extract from Wikipedia . . .

The front in the east was much longer than that in the west. The theatre of war was roughly delimited by the Baltic Sea in the west and Minsk in the east, and Saint Petersburg in the north and the Black Sea in the south, a distance of more than 1,600 kilometres (990 mi). This had a drastic effect on the nature of the warfare.

While World War I on the Western Front developed into trench warfare, the battle lines on the Eastern Front were much more fluid and trenches never truly developed. This was because the greater length of the front ensured that the density of soldiers in the line was lower so the line was easier to break. Once broken, the sparse communication networks made it difficult for the defender to rush reinforcements to the rupture in the line, mounting rapid counteroffensives to seal off any breakthrough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_I)

In my beta test single-player game, the Western and Eastern fronts developed in much the same way with trenches strung out across the map. Maybe if units on the Eastern Front could only entrench up to level 8 or 10 (instead of 16 or higher) then it would see much more mobile warfare than the Western front? Cavalry and armoured cars would be more important as artillery would be able to shift units out of trenches more easily.

Also, entrenchment on the Western front did not start until mid-September whereas in the game units start off entrenched. Could this be changed to create more mobile warfare on the Western front for the first few turns?


< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/1/2014 10:49:23 AM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 33
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/1/2014 12:09:18 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
Another spelling mistake in the "Tips" at the beginning - disbanding battleship message should be "incurs" not "incurrs".

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 34
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/1/2014 12:56:27 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
I will fix that right now cheers!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 35
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/1/2014 7:15:07 PM   
Xenocide

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline
Lost three successive games as the Central Powers and then played as the Entente. I think this needs balancing. When playing as the Entente once I set up my trenches I had more income then I knew what to do with. After the initial battles I pulled the BEF out of France as there was no need for it. Both Britain and France ended up with 3 research factories in every category and I still had a pretty big surplus.

I was wondering why the lines in France were three units deep on the Western Front when I was playing the Central Powers. Too much production.

I disbanded every Garrison I had and had a solid line of infantry on both main fronts and in the Middle East and Caucasus. I think it may be excessive.

Also backing the "slow to surrender issue. I attacked the Ottomans on three fronts and they did not surrender until I had taken every city in the nation. Germany surrendered when it had one city left and so did Austria-Hungary. Both fought on for a few turns without a capital between them.

I do like the improvements in sub warfare. If the Central Powers weren't so poor compared to the Allies I think it would work well. As it stands the British and French don't really need the convoy income.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 36
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 5:37:07 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I asked these two questions in an earlier post . . .

vii) Should ships be able to move into a port and be repaired on the same turn?

viii) Should ships be able to move into an allied port and be repaired (or be repaired as quickly)?

Just a few more thoughts. Again from Wikipedia about Jutland 1916 . . .

"Warspite was holed 150 times during the battle and had 14 killed and 16 wounded; among the latter warrant officer Walter Yeo, who became one of the first men to receive facial reconstruction via plastic surgery. Although she had been extensively damaged, Warspite could still raise steam and was ordered back to Rosyth during the evening of 31 May by Rear-Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas, commander of the 5th Battle Squadron. Whilst travelling across the North Sea the ship came under attack from a German U-boat. The U-boat fired three torpedoes, all of which missed their target. Warspite later attempted to ram a surfaced U-boat. She signalled ahead for escorts and a squadron of torpedo boats came out to meet her. They were too slow to screen her effectively, but there were no more encounters with German vessels and she reached Rosyth safely on the morning of 1 June, where it took two months to repair the damage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(03)

So this is a ship that has taken a fair bit of damage, but its main functions seem to be working OK still, yet it takes two months to repair at a home port. The difficulty here is that when you have a battleship, cruiser or submarine unit at 10 strength points in the game, how many vessels are actually represented by each unit? And, if a unit is damaged down to 4 or 5 strength points, what does that actually mean in terms of damage sustained? If a battleship unit at 10 strength points = 5 capital ships, does a battleship unit at 4 strength points mean that only 2 ships remain and three have been sunk? Or does it mean that all 5 battleships have been heavily damaged but none have been sunk? Or does it mean something in-between?

I think there are a number of possibilities for the game here. One way to depict one or two of the ships out of the 5 being sunk is to say that if a battleship unit is reduced to 4 strength points then it can only repair to 8 strength points, so one ship is permanently lost. If a battleship is damaged to 3 strength points then it can only repair to 6 strength points so two ships are lost - and so on. So battleship units could only fully repair if they had 5 or more strength points left i.e. the 5 ships had taken serious damage (like the Warspite above) but they could still function up to a point.

Then there is the question of repairs. What if major repairs could only be done in a home port? So a British battleship unit damaged down to 7 strength points would have to go into a British port to get fully repaired - if it went into a French or Italian port it could only get "patched up" and repaired by just 1 strength point. Also, repairs on a ship unit would start on the turn after the ship unit arrived in a port so the "move and repair" that happens now would be ended. Finally, research upgrades for ships can only be done in a home port, not an allied port.

I think these changes to the repair and upgrade rules would open up further tactical considerations as opposing players tried to damage units below 5 strength points (you could do the same thing for cruiser and submarine units too) and players would have to make crucial judgements about whether ships should stay at sea even when they are still on 7 or 8 strength points.






< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/2/2014 6:39:03 AM >

(in reply to Xenocide)
Post #: 37
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 8:55:43 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xenocide

Lost three successive games as the Central Powers and then played as the Entente. I think this needs balancing. When playing as the Entente once I set up my trenches I had more income then I knew what to do with. After the initial battles I pulled the BEF out of France as there was no need for it. Both Britain and France ended up with 3 research factories in every category and I still had a pretty big surplus.

I was wondering why the lines in France were three units deep on the Western Front when I was playing the Central Powers. Too much production.

I disbanded every Garrison I had and had a solid line of infantry on both main fronts and in the Middle East and Caucasus. I think it may be excessive.

Also backing the "slow to surrender issue. I attacked the Ottomans on three fronts and they did not surrender until I had taken every city in the nation. Germany surrendered when it had one city left and so did Austria-Hungary. Both fought on for a few turns without a capital between them.

I do like the improvements in sub warfare. If the Central Powers weren't so poor compared to the Allies I think it would work well. As it stands the British and French don't really need the convoy income.


The problem with to much production,is getting looked at, I will reduce the production out put for most off the major Nation's.


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Xenocide)
Post #: 38
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 9:01:07 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I asked these two questions in an earlier post . . .

vii) Should ships be able to move into a port and be repaired on the same turn?

viii) Should ships be able to move into an allied port and be repaired (or be repaired as quickly)?

Just a few more thoughts. Again from Wikipedia about Jutland 1916 . . .

"Warspite was holed 150 times during the battle and had 14 killed and 16 wounded; among the latter warrant officer Walter Yeo, who became one of the first men to receive facial reconstruction via plastic surgery. Although she had been extensively damaged, Warspite could still raise steam and was ordered back to Rosyth during the evening of 31 May by Rear-Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas, commander of the 5th Battle Squadron. Whilst travelling across the North Sea the ship came under attack from a German U-boat. The U-boat fired three torpedoes, all of which missed their target. Warspite later attempted to ram a surfaced U-boat. She signalled ahead for escorts and a squadron of torpedo boats came out to meet her. They were too slow to screen her effectively, but there were no more encounters with German vessels and she reached Rosyth safely on the morning of 1 June, where it took two months to repair the damage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(03)

So this is a ship that has taken a fair bit of damage, but its main functions seem to be working OK still, yet it takes two months to repair at a home port. The difficulty here is that when you have a battleship, cruiser or submarine unit at 10 strength points in the game, how many vessels are actually represented by each unit? And, if a unit is damaged down to 4 or 5 strength points, what does that actually mean in terms of damage sustained? If a battleship unit at 10 strength points = 5 capital ships, does a battleship unit at 4 strength points mean that only 2 ships remain and three have been sunk? Or does it mean that all 5 battleships have been heavily damaged but none have been sunk? Or does it mean something in-between?

I think there are a number of possibilities for the game here. One way to depict one or two of the ships out of the 5 being sunk is to say that if a battleship unit is reduced to 4 strength points then it can only repair to 8 strength points, so one ship is permanently lost. If a battleship is damaged to 3 strength points then it can only repair to 6 strength points so two ships are lost - and so on. So battleship units could only fully repair if they had 5 or more strength points left i.e. the 5 ships had taken serious damage (like the Warspite above) but they could still function up to a point.

Then there is the question of repairs. What if major repairs could only be done in a home port? So a British battleship unit damaged down to 7 strength points would have to go into a British port to get fully repaired - if it went into a French or Italian port it could only get "patched up" and repaired by just 1 strength point. Also, repairs on a ship unit would start on the turn after the ship unit arrived in a port so the "move and repair" that happens now would be ended. Finally, research upgrades for ships can only be done in a home port, not an allied port.

I think these changes to the repair and upgrade rules would open up further tactical considerations as opposing players tried to damage units below 5 strength points (you could do the same thing for cruiser and submarine units too) and players would have to make crucial judgements about whether ships should stay at sea even when they are still on 7 or 8 strength points.




I agree with your observations, I think the repair option happens to quickly,but any changes won't be included by the time this beta goes, to official release.But rest assured the software wiz kid and I will see what changes can be made.

On the brighter side, an official hot fix is in the pipeline,that fixes the reason the game has been crashing,plus a few other tweaks to help balance game play,watch this space folks.


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 39
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 6:55:04 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I agree with your observations, I think the repair option happens to quickly, but any changes won't be included by the time this beta goes, to official release.But rest assured the software wiz kid and I will see what changes can be made.


No problem. Maybe the patch after 1.40 then? I have just got a lot of ideas coming at the moment as I have had the best part of a year away from the game before this beta patch came out.


< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/2/2014 7:55:35 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 40
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 8:12:35 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 41
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/2/2014 9:34:17 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
In the one game I have been able to complete (as the Entente) Bulgaria did not enter the war. The Central Powers have no chance as the Beta patch is at the moment anyway, but Bulgaria should usually join the war and help to knock out Serbia.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 42
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/3/2014 10:33:11 AM   
bob.

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/2/2013
Status: offline
I don't know all that much about WW1 but I recall having read that German industry was leaps and bounds ahead of all other nations at the start of the war and only over time the Entente managed to get even close to the level of centralization and effectiveness of the German industry.

So instead of starting at 100 % industrial efficiency (I think they do?) maybe have the Entente start at a lower level and only reach the maximum mid-1915 or so. That way Germany has an industrial edge until then.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 43
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 6:21:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?
warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 44
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 8:04:34 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?
warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?


In one of my games I think I have done slightly better than historical but Bulgaria still remain neutral. With that said I see no chance of me winning the game.

CTGW is a game that I found was fairly balanced has now become so unbalanced that it hardly feels like it is worth the time playing. I find this saddening since this is, or rather was, one of my favourite games.

So, please, answer warspite1's question about Bulgaria.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 45
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 9:13:08 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?


Hot fix should be made available within the next couple off days, and Bulgaria will enter the war a few turns after Italy!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 46
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 9:16:59 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?
warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?


In one of my games I think I have done slightly better than historical but Bulgaria still remain neutral. With that said I see no chance of me winning the game.

CTGW is a game that I found was fairly balanced has now become so unbalanced that it hardly feels like it is worth the time playing. I find this saddening since this is, or rather was, one of my favourite games.

So, please, answer warspite1's question about Bulgaria.


There will be a hot fix that fixes reported game crashes, and within this hot fix, the game will have a number off game unbalanced issues addressed,the City of Brugge and the small garrison in Belgium have been removed from the game, as it appears a number off gamers have been finding it difficult to play the Schiefflin Plan .


< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/4/2014 10:22:41 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 47
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 9:18:21 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?


Hot fix should be made available within the next couple off days, and Bulgaria will enter the war a few turns after Italy!

Thank you. I appreciate this.


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 48
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 9:37:22 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Now back to how sea battles functions. I have several concerns about this. Here is a picure that illustrates a few of them.

The picture is from a game I play against warspite1 and from a sea battle a while ago. It shows the situation after three turns of fighting where the Russian battleship has been unable to move.

My concern with this sea battle is the following:
1) I find it ridiculous that enemy ships can block other ship from passing. I do understand that passing (through) another fleet means a battle but if you seek battle then I do not see how that blockade can occur. The Russian ship was in fact a German prisoner for at least 6 turns before she was sunk.

2) This fight lasted for 6 or more turns before the Russian BB was lost. I do not like that ships fighting at sea seems to have unlimited supply of ammo. One solution that could be applied is that ships that fight at sea use up ammo as they do when they shore bombard. I think that even subs could use ammo.

3) The Russian battleship is in a home water hex. Yet she has not done even one point of damage to one the German ships although she has fired at them, defensively, 6 times.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 49
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 9:43:24 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now back to how sea battles functions. I have several concerns about this. Here is a picure that illustrates a few of them.

The picture is from a game I play against warspite1 and from a sea battle a while ago. It shows the situation after three turns of fighting where the Russian battleship has been unable to move.

My concern with this sea battle is the following:
1) I find it ridiculous that enemy ships can block other ship from passing. I do understand that passing (through) another fleet means a battle but if you seek battle then I do not see how that blockade can occur. The Russian ship was in fact a German prisoner for at least 6 turns before she was sunk.

2) This fight lasted for 6 or more turns before the Russian BB was lost. I do not like that ships fighting at sea seems to have unlimited supply of ammo. One solution that could be applied is that ships that fight at sea use up ammo as they do when they shore bombard. I think that even subs could use ammo.

3) The Russian battleship is in a home water hex. Yet she has not done even one point of damage to one the German ships although she has fired at them, defensively, 6 times.




warspite1

This was one of the suggestions from way back. The idea was that - just as army units lose efficiency, so naval units that stay at sea too long do the same and need to return to port to replicate the need to refuel, rearm etc. There is then far more of a tactical element about when you put to sea, how long do you chance your arm for etc etc.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/4/2014 10:44:40 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 50
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 10:48:34 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
I hear you folks, I have altered a lot off Naval stuff, which will solve most of the above issues, Home Port & Green Dot Area are now much more off a deterant to, aggressive enemy attack's, and believe me you ain't going to be attacking in the Green Dot Area from now on simply because you will loose big time! Once you play with the new scripts for naval combat, the Russian Battleship will more than hold its own against 3 or 4 attacking fleets.

PLUS HOW ARE YOU GUYS MANAGING TO TAKE SCREEN SHOTS, MY PRINT SCREEN KEYBOARD BUTTON IS NOT WORKING FOR ME.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/4/2014 11:51:44 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 51
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 10:50:09 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I hear you folks, I have altered a lot off Naval stuff, which will solve most of the above issues, Home Port & Green Dot Area are now much more off a deterant to, aggressive enemy attack's, and believe me you ain't going to be attacking in the Green Dot Area from now on simply because you will loose big time! Once you play with the new scripts for naval combat, the Russian Battleship will more than hold its own against 3 or 4 attacking fleets.

Thank you for the work and effort you make in perfecting this game.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 52
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 10:59:42 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Now onwards to my next naval concern.

Should English or French submarines be allowed to sail into the Baltic sea without opening some sort of route into the Baltic? Like capturing Copenhagen or something to that effect?

In many of the games I play the entire German fleet is needed to protect the Baltic convoys versus one Russian and one British submarine.

Should submarines be allowed to attack convoys where they appear at the edge of the map?

I thought that shipments from Sweden to Germany did suffer any major losses during WWI. But in the game almost every convoy gets annihilated if the triple entente so desire.

Edit: I use my print screen buttons (two) so I am afraid I can't help you with that.


< Message edited by Orm -- 1/5/2014 12:00:53 AM >


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 53
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/4/2014 11:24:29 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
I don't like the idea that the Entente, IE Britain & France Submarines can gain easy access to the Baltic, I tried to make it harder by giving Germany more cruisers so that she could blockade the entrance to the Baltic.

While I'm here I'm play testing Battleships with the same range advantage that the Artillery unit gets off 2 hexes,what do you guys think?

Another thing I have just left a message for the software wiz kid, asking him how hard would it be, to treat Naval units the same as the Artillery unit, IE that they consume ammunitions after maybe 3 rounds of combat maximum,and once ammo depleted then they have to return to port to rearm.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/5/2014 12:34:30 AM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 54
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 8:52:28 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I really like the way the discussion is going on the naval aspects of the game. With ammunition, and maybe repairs being altered at a later stage, players are going to have to think really hard about how they use their navies. Rotation of ships will become a factor and this will encourage some nations to build extra ships for this purpose (e.g. Russia and Austro-Hungary. One class of ship that is not represented at the moment is the destroyer and I was wondering what the thinking is about these ships? At the moment I tend to assume that when I have a battleship unit at strength 10 then that might represent 4 capital ships and their destroyer escorts. Is that how you all see it?

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 55
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 9:44:05 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I am trying to understand the two main infantry units at the moment - "infantry" and "garrison".

Infantry costs 30PP, garrison costs 10PP = one third the cost (33%)
Infantry costs 10MP, garrison costs 6PP = three-fifths the cost (60%)
Infantry upkeep costs 3PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP = two-thirds the cost (66%)
Infantry takes 3 turns to complete, garrison takes 1 turn - one third the time (33%)

I don't actually understand exactly what these two unit types are meant to represent or why there seems to be discrepancies between their costs and completion times on the one hand and their upkeep and costs on the other. Do "infantry" units represent a certain number of men and "garrison" units a lesser number of men? Is there any scale at work here? Maybe army corps and army division perhaps?

I was looking at another WW1 game yesterday and they have the following infantry units - HQ, Corps, Detachment, Garrison (also Marines, Engineers and Partisans). The Corps units represent 2+ divisions or somewhere between 50-100,000 men. The Detachments represent less than 50,000 men and the Garrisons are just a token force.

I would imagine that whatever you do it is very difficult to reproduce historical mobilisation rates in the game and maybe what we have is the best that can be done (apart from "garrison" being the wrong term for the smaller infantry unit).

Any thoughts on this?

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 56
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 10:44:45 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I really like the way the discussion is going on the naval aspects of the game. With ammunition, and maybe repairs being altered at a later stage, players are going to have to think really hard about how they use their navies. Rotation of ships will become a factor and this will encourage some nations to build extra ships for this purpose (e.g. Russia and Austro-Hungary. One class of ship that is not represented at the moment is the destroyer and I was wondering what the thinking is about these ships? At the moment I tend to assume that when I have a battleship unit at strength 10 then that might represent 4 capital ships and their destroyer escorts. Is that how you all see it?


It is all abstract guess work, as to the exact number off capital ships, a fleet unit is supposed to represent. I think the term fleet is misleading, I think of them as Squadrons off no more than 10 Battleships, with an escort of a Destroyers,as for Destroyers as a new unit, I have included them in my mod, as a new unit type, in the production queue. I would like to see them added to the game, as the main anti-submarine unit,and not have Cruisers doing this job,the anti-submarine roll is a perfect fit for the Destroyer.


< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/5/2014 11:50:48 AM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 57
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 11:01:07 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I am trying to understand the two main infantry units at the moment - "infantry" and "garrison".

Infantry costs 30PP, garrison costs 10PP = one third the cost (33%)
Infantry costs 10MP, garrison costs 6PP = three-fifths the cost (60%)
Infantry upkeep costs 3PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP = two-thirds the cost (66%)
Infantry takes 3 turns to complete, garrison takes 1 turn - one third the time (33%)

I don't actually understand exactly what these two unit types are meant to represent or why there seems to be discrepancies between their costs and completion times on the one hand and their upkeep and costs on the other. Do "infantry" units represent a certain number of men and "garrison" units a lesser number of men? Is there any scale at work here? Maybe army corps and army division perhaps?

I was looking at another WW1 game yesterday and they have the following infantry units - HQ, Corps, Detachment, Garrison (also Marines, Engineers and Partisans). The Corps units represent 2+ divisions or somewhere between 50-100,000 men. The Detachments represent less than 50,000 men and the Garrisons are just a token force.

I would imagine that whatever you do it is very difficult to reproduce historical mobilisation rates in the game and maybe what we have is the best that can be done (apart from "garrison" being the wrong term for the smaller infantry unit).

Any thoughts on this?


The new Infantry v Garrison script settings, I'm play testing. Have the Infantry being twice the size and strength off the Garrison unit.

Infantry costs 20PP, garrison costs 10PP

Infantry costs 12MP, garrison costs 6MP

Infantry upkeep costs 4PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP

Infantry takes 4 turns to complete, garrison takes 2 turns to complete.

Although very handy,having a new unit built and be available to use, as a fighting unit in 1 turn, or 2 weeks in game terms is ludicrous.Even 2 turns or a month, for a new Garrison unit to be made available, is a short period of time, to create a new fully functioning fighting unit. But having these slight changes makes the gamer plan ahead and think more about what they are doing.







< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/5/2014 12:12:24 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 58
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 12:30:26 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The new Infantry v Garrison script settings, I'm play testing. Have the Infantry being twice the size and strength off the Garrison unit.

Infantry costs 20PP, garrison costs 10PP

Infantry costs 12MP, garrison costs 6MP

Infantry upkeep costs 4PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP

Infantry takes 4 turns to complete, garrison takes 2 turns to complete.

Although very handy,having a new unit built and be available to use, as a fighting unit in 1 turn, or 2 weeks in game terms is ludicrous.Even 2 turns or a month, for a new Garrison unit to be made available, is a short period of time, to create a new fully functioning fighting unit. But having these slight changes makes the gamer plan ahead and think more about what they are doing.


Sounds very good, Kirk. Maybe the "efficiency" rating of newly built infantry units should be lower to start with to represent inexperienced troops. So losses would be very heavy if they were thrown into battle straight away?

Is there a better term than "garrison" we can use for the smaller infantry unit? Would it be a big job to change it?

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 59
RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/5/2014 1:07:03 PM   
bob.

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/2/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
PLUS HOW ARE YOU GUYS MANAGING TO TAKE SCREEN SHOTS, MY PRINT SCREEN KEYBOARD BUTTON IS NOT WORKING FOR ME.

You can use Fraps:
http://www.fraps.com/download.php

Also saves you the trouble of having to paste it in an image editor after printing the screen (saves in Fraps directory).

Alternatively of course, you can always just play in a window.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938